Sylvan (fey) Sorcerer / Enlarge Person / Animal Companion

[Zavarov]

Does the combo in the title work? The Sylvan bloodline grants the sorcerer an Animal Companion with the "share spells" ability. "Share spells" states that "the druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal)". This seems to indicate Enlarge Person is fine.

What makes me unsure is the next sentence in the description: "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion".

Go? No go?

[minoritarian]

How else are you getting your animal companion if not via your class? Yes, it works.

[Joesi]

I think the biggest issue is when it says "spells that affect creatures of the companion's type" to know if the word affect is used intentionally instead of target, or not. If they didn't mean target, then it makes me wonder what affect means if not target, since aside from AoE spells, the targets are always affected, and the affected are generally targets.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but to me it seems like having an animal companion receive any spell regardless of it's allowed targets seems wrong. Maybe it's not as big of a problem as I'd think. One could cast things that normally target inanimate objects, undead, or other bizarre things that might be kinda strong (again I'm not that knowledgeable about all the potential spells)

My concern is probably completely unwarranted, and what minoritarian is saying would be correct. Sylvan bloodline Sorcerer is a class, so I wouldn't think there's an issue.

[Gavmania]

Joesi wrote:

I think the biggest issue is when it says "spells that affect creatures of the companion's type" to know if the word affect is used intentionally instead of target, or not. If they didn't mean target, then it makes me wonder what affect means if not target, since aside from AoE spells, the targets are always affected, and the affected are generally targets.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but to me it seems like having an animal companion receive any spell regardless of it's allowed targets seems wrong. Maybe it's not as big of a problem as I'd think. One could cast things that normally target inanimate objects, undead, or other bizarre things that might be kinda strong (again I'm not that knowledgeable about all the potential spells)

My concern is probably completely unwarranted, and what minoritarian is saying would be correct. Sylvan bloodline Sorcerer is a class, so I wouldn't think there's an issue.

Quote:

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

(Emphasis mine)

The Druid (or Sorceror with Sylvan Bloodline) cannot cast spells that normally target inanimate objects, undead or anything else on his animal companion. Only spells with the target specification of you or another can be cast on an animal companion, even if it does not normally affect them, e.g. Enlarge person can normally be cast on another if they are humanoid, but this ability allows the animal companion to be targetted.

[Artanthos]

Gavmania wrote:

Joesi wrote:

I think the biggest issue is when it says "spells that affect creatures of the companion's type" to know if the word affect is used intentionally instead of target, or not. If they didn't mean target, then it makes me wonder what affect means if not target, since aside from AoE spells, the targets are always affected, and the affected are generally targets.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but to me it seems like having an animal companion receive any spell regardless of it's allowed targets seems wrong. Maybe it's not as big of a problem as I'd think. One could cast things that normally target inanimate objects, undead, or other bizarre things that might be kinda strong (again I'm not that knowledgeable about all the potential spells)

My concern is probably completely unwarranted, and what minoritarian is saying would be correct. Sylvan bloodline Sorcerer is a class, so I wouldn't think there's an issue.

Quote:

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

(Emphasis mine)

The Druid (or Sorceror with Sylvan Bloodline) cannot cast spells that normally target inanimate objects, undead or anything else on his animal companion. Only spells with the target specification of you or another can be cast on an animal companion, even if it does not normally affect them, e.g. Enlarge person can normally be cast on another if they are humanoid, but this ability allows the animal companion to be targetted.

You emphasized the wrong sentence. The question was about legal target type, not adjusting the range of personal spells.

Quote:

A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal).

[Michael Sayre]

Artanthos has the right of it. A Sylvan Sorcerer can cast Enlarge Person on his Animal Companion, even though it isn't a humanoid.

[AceofKnaves]

So, you could take a spinosaurus animal companion and cast alter self on him to make him look human. Then give him a sword as well as a little INT boost and you have a normal looking super strong fighter? Or even better, hit him with Monstrous Physique 4 and make him a 4 armed gargoyle with ridiculous STR, Attack and Defense. I'm about to do this with my Arcanist. I'm taking a 1 level dip into sorcerer and getting bloodline development. He's level 11 (Arcanist 10/ Sorcerer 1). So, at my current level I could have a 4 armed gargoyle with a 41 STR? NICE

Spinosuarus lev 7+
STR 26

Animal Companion STR/DEX Boost
+3

Magic Tattoo Enhancement Bonus
+4

Mythic Monstrous Physique
+8

[Sithis of Fangwood]

Probably why Spinosaurus was removed as an option from Organized Play. It had, by far, the highest Strength of any Animal Companion.

Just make sure your GM is okay with what you're concocting.

[Cap. Darling]

AceofKnaves wrote:

So, you could take a spinosaurus animal companion and cast alter self on him to make him look human. Then give him a sword as well as a little INT boost and you have a normal looking super strong fighter? Or even better, hit him with Monstrous Physique 4 and make him a 4 armed gargoyle with ridiculous STR, Attack and Defense. I'm about to do this with my Arcanist. I'm taking a 1 level dip into sorcerer and getting bloodline development. He's level 11 (Arcanist 10/ Sorcerer 1). So, at my current level I could have a 4 armed gargoyle with a 41 STR? NICE

Spinosuarus lev 7+
STR 26

Animal Companion STR/DEX Boost
+3

Magic Tattoo Enhancement Bonus
+4

Mythic Monstrous Physique
+8

wouldent he loose 4 str from being large from the start?

[Davick]

Would a quadruped Companion so enlarged gain reach?

[claudekennilol]

Yes, because the spell says it gets reach.

*if you want to argue that it says "humanoid gains reach" then the whole point is moot because it also says "humanoid grows in size". So it either gets reach and grows in size or it doesn't. And since it does, then it does.

[Byakko]

Quote:

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

One concern I have is that the second sentence may be a qualifier for the first.

I.e., the lifting of the type restriction is only applicable for spells which meet the targeting requirement of "You".

I don't feel strongly about this, but thought it was worth mentioning as a possibility.

[claudekennilol]

Byakko wrote:

Quote:

Share Spells (Ex): The druid may cast a spell with a target of “You” on her animal companion (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on herself. A druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal). Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion. This ability does not allow the animal to share abilities that are not spells, even if they function like spells.

One concern I have is that the second sentence may be a qualifier for the first.

I.e., the lifting of the type restriction is only applicable for spells which meet the targeting requirement of "You".

I don't feel strongly about this, but thought it was worth mentioning as a possibility.

If it were meant to be a qualifier then it would have either been one sentence or specifically mentioned it. It did neither so is not a qualifier.

[BigNorseWolf]

As a qualifier it makes no sense. A species only spell with a target of you didn't come around until 10 years after the ability had been written.

Yes, share spells works

[Byakko]

Ah, good to know, thanks.